There is no logical step whatever from "cars are designed by humans" to "all phenomena are designed by an intelligence". Intelligent design is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, prima facie. It's just that there's no evidence for it at all and a perfectly satisfactory alternative explanation.

To emotionally claim ID is "obvious" is basically to fart out of one's mouth.

Dan Rowden wrote:There is no logical step whatever from "cars are designed by humans" to "all phenomena are designed by an intelligence".

One obvious abyss between the two I just realized is that cars and all other objects designed by humans, even when they would last tens of thousands years to come, are still an invisible speck on the (planetary) evolutionary scale of things. So far it might be more obvious to suggest that we humans have briefly mimicked, manipulated or reproduced a few elements of the larger biological and physical processes. At least it's more modest than saying nature mimics human activities. On the scales where evolution is supposed to work it seems more like farting into the wind; a clumsy mimicry? At least so far. Not exactly a solid basis to draw conclusions from about how the universe at large works in terms of design or purpose. Purpose of course being a concept which only works in a relatively small confined context: a typical "idios kosmos".

Now lets talk about the gift of men to build belief systems and worlds of meaning and purpose. Lets talk about the evolution of belief itself and what we need for the future. Does progress need stupidity? Or do we need the sense of progress and destination most of all? And what might happen then at the pinnacle if ever reached? In nature one sees every year rot and degeneration setting in to make room for something different or nothing at all. The beauty of autumn for some.

Beingof1 wrote:Science cannot observe a phenomena but without a premise draws a conclusion?

Well that settles it, I should've left it with what Dan said. You clearly don't understand evolution. Did you watch that video? It would have helped you if you could get over it making fun of you.

Oh of course. Whenever meta-evolution is challenged, the same old stick - go read a biology textbook.

I here this a lot. The questions however, are never addressed. Like I said - you just avoid the issues and claim the person asking does not get it. Let me give you three questions, when addressed, blows this so called theory out of the ballpark.

1) How did a single cell or simple life form diverge into trillions of species and then once evolved is subject to lateral gene transfer? In other words; when life was simple, it had the magical property to become complex organisms, like a human. Once life is highly advanced, it loses this mysterious ability because it is now contained by lateral gene transfer.

If you do not understand this question, you do not understand evolution.

2) How did the line diverge into plant and animal? One takes in oxygen and expends carbon dioxide. The other is reversed. Explain, in a logical way, how the line between plant and animal diverged.

If you do not understand this question, you do not understand evolution.

3) Mutations almost never result in an advantage for survival. In 99.9% of the cases of mutation, it results in a deformity that inhibits the ability to adapt to the environment. Mutations are almost never passed on genetically. In 99.5% of the cases, the mutation is corrected by the host and the offspring returns to the original programming. Explain how, according to mathematical Bayesian statistical analysis how this can occur?

If you do not understand this question, you do not understand evolution.

Oh of course. My premise must be an idiotic belief in nomadic lore. That way you feel intellectually superior without ever having to question your belief system.

Genetic code is reprogrammed through conscious choice. This is done on the individual level as well as the universal consciousness. The evidence is clear in paleontology. New species do not gradually change over time. In the strata, brand new species appear as if out of thin air completely intact.

Light = consciousness. And this would explain why cells emit the photon and electrical current.

Dan Rowden wrote:There is no logical step whatever from "cars are designed by humans" to "all phenomena are designed by an intelligence".

Why don`t I give it a shot, whatta ya say?

1) The goal is to build a vehicle to transport a human from point A to point B in the most comfortable and fast means available.

2) The design is a chemical, electrical, and mechanical closed system.

Intelligent design has an overwhelming amount of evidence. Stacks and stacks of evidence. You just simply refuse to look at it.

To emotionally claim ID is "obvious" is basically to fart out of one's mouth.

No emotion here - you are just trapped in your worldview.

How about this - your brain and central nervous system is a very sophisticated receiver, resistor and capacitor for consciousness. We already know light pushes a data stream. We use it every day; the internet, radio waves, fibre optics etc. Your thought is a stream of electrons and the synaptic gap captures a single bit of information.

Therefore; your thought is an electromagnetic wave function - and the math is an identical match to the photon.

There - farted out for you intact with all the underpinnings of science to account for its falsification.

some scientists recognise 'imputation'.
the action of the observer in assigning a fixed condition on phenomena.

your lynchpin is photon.

photon is found to be imputed on pieces/parts that are thought to constitute photon.
therefore photon is a name, a nominated reality.
examining the pieces/ parts constituting photon reveals those pieces/parts have nominal existence only as well.
its names all the way down and all the way up.

Have a look at your car.
where is 'carness'.
there is no 'carness'.
'carness' is imputed on the pieces/parts gathered together.
if you took the steering wheel out of the car would the car be a car.
'carness' depends on pieces/parts and an imputer placing the meaning 'carness' on it.

'gearbox' depends on pieces/parts.
gearbox is name only.
there is no fucking gearbox.
geddit?

Beingof1 wrote:1) How did a single cell or simple life form diverge into trillions of species and then once evolved is subject to lateral gene transfer? In other words; when life was simple, it had the magical property to become complex organisms, like a human. Once life is highly advanced, it loses this mysterious ability because it is now contained by lateral gene transfer.

All you're describing is a phenomena that we can observe but not explain scientifically. Just because current theories of science cannot explain this aspect of the development of complex organisms, it doesn't completely negate evolution altogether either. The studies of evolution rely on finite empirical evidence, and therefore will never result in a absolute explanation of the infinite origination of anything. But it does adequately describe part of the process of the ever-occurring change that is empirically observable to human consciousness.

2) How did the line diverge into plant and animal? One takes in oxygen and expends carbon dioxide. The other is reversed. Explain, in a logical way, how the line between plant and animal diverged.

See above.

3) Mutations almost never result in an advantage for survival. In 99.9% of the cases of mutation, it results in a deformity that inhibits the ability to adapt to the environment. Mutations are almost never passed on genetically. In 99.5% of the cases, the mutation is corrected by the host and the offspring returns to the original programming. Explain how, according to mathematical Bayesian statistical analysis how this can occur?

So was it intended by your ID god for mutations to result in a 99.9% failure to increase the organisms chances of survival? Is God that incompetent, or was he just extremely careless when he created such a faulty mechanism? Just think of how much better off we would be if mutations occurred at even just a 10% success rate!

But of course, the problem here is that you consider it impossible for an infinite universe to sustain a finite phenomena that has finite odds of occurring over an eternity of time. Instead, you want to believe that the infinite universe needs the causal influence of some kind of external conscious for any sort of phenomena to occur, regardless of the fact that an ID God is another form of phenomena itself. There's your infinite regression.

Genetic code is reprogrammed through conscious choice. This is done on the individual level as well as the universal consciousness. The evidence is clear in paleontology. New species do not gradually change over time. In the strata, brand new species appear as if out of thin air completely intact.

Light = consciousness. And this would explain why cells emit the photon and electrical current.

Anyone can manipulate the defined limitations of consciousness as they see fit to help their agenda. Tree huggers say that plants are conscious. PETA advocates have a strong attachment to the perceived consciousness of animals. I could say that you're unconscious due to your inability to comprehend that the word "consciousness" is just a label that is ultimately meaningless in consideration of the eternal nature of cause and effect.

Stop worrying about validity of evolution so much. It's preventing you from reaching anything higher in your understanding of reality.

Please learn the subject before you comment. We are talking about the causal chain no matter which side you come down on.

Look at the blind believers and defenders of the faith making a showing - truly unbelievable.

some scientists recognise 'imputation'.
the action of the observer in assigning a fixed condition on phenomena.

your lynchpin is photon.

photon is found to be imputed on pieces/parts that are thought to constitute photon.
therefore photon is a name, a nominated reality.
examining the pieces/ parts constituting photon reveals those pieces/parts have nominal existence only as well.
its names all the way down and all the way up.

Then why oh why do you defend the 'name of evolution'? Is that a special name? does the name evolution have special properties that exempt it from your ramblings of pieces and parts?

The brainwashing is actually stunning.

Have a look at your car.
where is 'carness'.
there is no 'carness'.
'carness' is imputed on the pieces/parts gathered together.
if you took the steering wheel out of the car would the car be a car.
'carness' depends on pieces/parts and an imputer placing the meaning 'carness' on it.

'gearbox' depends on pieces/parts.
gearbox is name only.
there is no fucking gearbox.
geddit?

This is just ignorance run amok - where is your evolution? geddit?

I mean duh. There is no evolution, right Dennis? There is no cause and effect, right Dennis?

Then what in blazes are you rambling on about?

photon is imputed.

Evolution is imputed - cause and effect is imputed - but these are magical words, right Dennis? They are exempt because they have special meaning in your world view.

existence precedes essence.

No no no no no no no no no!

Essence precedes existence in any coherent framework of philosophy. What you just said is illogical to the absurd.

quit assigning essence to phenomena you little ol' meaning maker.

You do it in every single quote and post and are oblivious to how really entrenched in fantasy you are.

bluerap:

BO1
1) How did a single cell or simple life form diverge into trillions of species and then once evolved is subject to lateral gene transfer? In other words; when life was simple, it had the magical property to become complex organisms, like a human. Once life is highly advanced, it loses this mysterious ability because it is now contained by lateral gene transfer.

bluerap;
All you're describing is a phenomena that we can observe but not explain scientifically. Just because current theories of science cannot explain this aspect of the development of complex organisms, it doesn't completely negate evolution altogether either. The studies of evolution rely on finite empirical evidence, and therefore will never result in a absolute explanation of the infinite origination of anything. But it does adequately describe part of the process of the ever-occurring change that is empirically observable to human consciousness.

Let me see if I get what you are saying here. Even though we cannot observe, test, experiment, falsify or have a congruent, logical and cogent concept - we decide its true anyway.

Well alriiiighty then. Next stop, Peter Pan Land folks.

BO1:
2) How did the line diverge into plant and animal? One takes in oxygen and expends carbon dioxide. The other is reversed. Explain, in a logical way, how the line between plant and animal diverged.

bluerap:
See above.

Hey - whoever said logic had to make sense, right? Even though it defies all logic and no one can explain the theory in any way that would make sense - it pisses off all the theists so that makes it science?

Truly - and I mean truly - unbelievable denseness beyond imagination. This should be in a novel.

BO1:
3) Mutations almost never result in an advantage for survival. In 99.9% of the cases of mutation, it results in a deformity that inhibits the ability to adapt to the environment. Mutations are almost never passed on genetically. In 99.5% of the cases, the mutation is corrected by the host and the offspring returns to the original programming. Explain how, according to mathematical Bayesian statistical analysis how this can occur?

bluerap:
So was it intended by your ID god for mutations to result in a 99.9% failure to increase the organisms chances of survival? Is God that incompetent, or was he just extremely careless when he created such a faulty mechanism? Just think of how much better off we would be if mutations occurred at even just a 10% success rate!

But of course, the problem here is that you consider it impossible for an infinite universe to sustain a finite phenomena that has finite odds of occurring over an eternity of time. Instead, you want to believe that the infinite universe needs the causal influence of some kind of external conscious for any sort of phenomena to occur, regardless of the fact that an ID God is another form of phenomena itself. There's your infinite regression.

Once again, you did not answer a single question. Not one. You did not attempt to answer, all you have is that simpleton theistic arguments (and the very weak ones at that) do not answer the question either.

Thats it? That is all you have? I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself until you actually have something of substance to contribute.

BO1:
Genetic code is reprogrammed through conscious choice. This is done on the individual level as well as the universal consciousness. The evidence is clear in paleontology. New species do not gradually change over time. In the strata, brand new species appear as if out of thin air completely intact.

Light = consciousness. And this would explain why cells emit the photon and electrical current.

bluerap:
Anyone can manipulate the defined limitations of consciousness as they see fit to help their agenda. Tree huggers say that plants are conscious. PETA advocates have a strong attachment to the perceived consciousness of animals. I could say that you're unconscious due to your inability to comprehend that the word "consciousness" is just a label that is ultimately meaningless in consideration of the eternal nature of cause and effect.

Stop worrying about validity of evolution so much. It's preventing you from reaching anything higher in your understanding of reality.

So its Ok for you but not for me - you are two faced and probably still not be able to see it. You will still think it is me. If I should not be "worrying about validity of evolution so much" why are you talking to me?

I told you - and you are truly listening challenged and are very young in understanding - I have the means and done experiments, observation, falsification and predictive properties. That wizzed right in your left ear and out the right.

Before you lecture me, learn a thing or two about actually trying to listen to the other person and actually respond to something other than the robot in your head.

Blind believers in something that cannot be explained in any intelligible way because its better than being a theist is just sad. I had such high hopes for this board and the entrenched little boy syndrome might be to much to break through.

I seen a guy use a gearbox to anchor his boat.
to move to the next spot he'd winch it up.
gearboxness is now anchorness.

a chairs essence is supposed to be for sitting, chairness.
it can have ladderness to stand on to change a light bulb.
it can be firewood for warmth
it can be art
it can be a weapon to knock you on the head.

its existence precedes its essence which is the meaning put on it.

it can be busted down to its molecules, atoms, subatomic particles et al,
'til there's nothing there.

Agreed.
One is reminded of Emeril Lagasse's long-ago TV cooking show, Essence of Emeril.
Bam! Kick it up a notch...
Obviously, it's plain to see one must exist before the essence, that's where one's parents come into (fore)play.

bluerap wrote:Seven years, and you still think that cause and effect is a finite phenomena.

And you are still listening challenged. You wanna know how I know? Because you blew right past my two references to cause and effect being infinite and still say this.

Dennis Mahar wrote:I seen a guy use a gearbox to anchor his boat.
to move to the next spot he'd winch it up.
gearboxness is now anchorness.

a chairs essence is supposed to be for sitting, chairness.
it can have ladderness to stand on to change a light bulb.
it can be firewood for warmth
it can be art
it can be a weapon to knock you on the head.

its existence precedes its essence which is the meaning put on it.

it can be busted down to its molecules, atoms, subatomic particles et al,
'til there's nothing there.

The amazing thing is, most posting right now are thinking I am the one who is not getting it. When I say amazing - it is epic denial.

This is known as cognitive dissonance with a little group think thrown in for mutual pats on the back to reinforce the ignorance.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Beingof1 wrote:Intelligent design has an overwhelming amount of evidence.

And yet there's not one coherent scientific theory to help anyone to test even a small amount.

I will give you one - are you ready?

Plan an action you will take tomorrow. Tomorrow, carry out the action.Once you accomplish this experiment let me know if the universe has properties of intelligence and design.

You will probably want to laugh and scoff because of the simplicity of this profound tautology. This is just the initial first step experiment if you, for reals, want to know the truth.

And will you defend evolution when it is impossible to falsify? Any life whatsoever is possible under this theory. When meta-evolution needs life to mutate into trillions of differing lifeforms, it can. When life is subject to a strict lateral gene transfer - evolution can do that to. Meta-evolution can do anything because its magical.

Hocus pocus

But you do not understand these fundamental of science.
But you do not understand these fundamentals of logic.
But you do not understand these fundamentals of philosophy.

You would like that to be true, would you not Diebert?
That way, you can pull the bedsheets back over your eyes and pretend I do not have logical questions, real answers, cogent and a congruent alternative to mind numbing mantras of the great totality that is blind, deaf and dumb.

Only pretense. Hence the religious Kool-Aid troubling the mind. You used to be sharper than this!

Try again "not knowing".

I used to share higher thought - it is true. The reason I appear as though I am ranting is because you guys should be out of grade school already. Instead, you are still stuck because you avoid truth - at all logical cost - to avoid appearing anything like a theist.

So no - sharing the much deeper truths of reality is pointless until some logic, reason, and common sense of truth is allowed to have the preeminence.

can you distinguish between a mind that conceives of an electron,
and an electron the mind conceives of?

if you can you may notice that there's an interdependent causal relationship.

you may also assume that at the moment a mind conceives of an electron, that the electron always existed and was waiting for a mind to find it.
have you evidence that the electron always existed.

what you are arguing,apparently, and I could be mistaken, is essentialism.
that 'things' have an essential nature, are independent, have their 'own being', exist from their own side.

what about the notion of a participatory universe, a dance of mind and matter.
a display.

what is eminently noticeable about sentient being is it's desire or concern for its being,
what matters for it.
it is ambitious and wary.
it is seeking pleasure and avoiding pain,
looking for growth opportunities and avoiding danger.

Dennis Mahar wrote:can you distinguish between a mind that conceives of an electron,
and an electron the mind conceives of?

if you can you may notice that there's an interdependent causal relationship.

I want to say, before I answer your post, thank you. Thank you for not making assumptions except what is necessary to make your point or ask your question. This is how true communication begins. Make as few assumptions as possible, ask questions for positional clarification, and state your position as clearly as possible.

I mean it Dennis - thank you. Now to your post.

The interdependent relationship is identical. Any thing is an exact match to the math of the concept. You might not think you use math but you do. We use it to tie our shoes and walk. What can become updated as to the information that expands on the specifics.

you may also assume that at the moment a mind conceives of an electron, that the electron always existed and was waiting for a mind to find it.
have you evidence that the electron always existed.

This is the heart of the argument that I have been involved with on this board for over seven years in fact. I used to go by a similar screen name.

My position is that no thing, including the electron, can or does exist until it is brought into focus. We find that we agree. The QRS and company have the position that all things exist interdependent caused by an infinite chain of causality. You are simply another thing and got real lucky to be able to see that you are another thing.

No thing can exist outside of consciousness is the heart of truth. Consciousness is the fabric of the universe.

what you are arguing,apparently, and I could be mistaken, is essentialism.
that 'things' have an essential nature, are independent, have their 'own being', exist from their own side.

what about the notion of a participatory universe, a dance of mind and matter.
a display.

This has been my position from day one. As a side note - you really should not make assumptions about what another person thinks or believes until you ask. Ask instead of making assumptions.

If you hold this to be true - then we agree. No thing can exist independent of consciousness. The center of consciousness is everywhere and the circumference is nowhere.

what is eminently noticeable about sentient being is it's desire or concern for its being,
what matters for it.
it is ambitious and wary.
it is seeking pleasure and avoiding pain,
looking for growth opportunities and avoiding danger.

causes/conditions.

We cannot hope to figure it out. It must instead be revealed and this takes abject humility and ruthless honesty. When it is revealed we find we have any answer we can think of because what you are composed if is a fractal that is the whole of totality. All, and I do mean all, the information of the universe is stored in you. In your consciousness.

But if one argues for their limitations, they win the argument hands down. Once one realizes there are no limits then the field of more possibilities open as like a windowless monad.

The QRS and company have the position that all things exist interdependent caused by an infinite chain of causality.

infinite has different connotations.
there's the time based idea.
and,
to my way of thinking the QRS curriculum holds that infinite means not-a-thing, not finite, no-thing, formless.
a spiritual domain of clear mind free of delusion that's a possibility for humans.
one dwells there.
it is the enlightened domain.
QRS recognises human being is full of desire and agenda and that desire ought to be directed towards enlightenment rather than world-eating.

science is a world-eating phenomenon,
it constructs models and fits phenomena into its models, disregarding phenomena that doesn't quite fit.
all it comes up with is high tech sunglasses (pleasure products) and nuclear bombs (pain products).
so, its relatively useless and harmful.
I have heard Einstein was stricken with remorse for his role in enabling such monstrous products and turned to philosophy for solace.

QRS recognises the ultimate reality of form (this is how Dennis reads the QRS curriculum).
that form is empty, impermanent, non-self.
that giving selfhood to any phenomena is giving it its own essence which is nominal reality only and is a conventional reality or agreement deluded beings hold as the only reality.

QRS make a judgement call on a form called Woman.
which is a disposedness or disposition toward worldly trivial pursuits that includes most men.
QRS welcome rational women with a passion for enlightenment with open arms.
the assumption that QRS is misygonistic is misunderstood.

The QRS and company have the position that all things exist interdependent caused by an infinite chain of causality.

infinite has different connotations.
there's the time based idea.
and,
to my way of thinking the QRS curriculum holds that infinite means not-a-thing, not finite, no-thing, formless.

Just so you know, I care about these guys a lot. That may not be easily discerned, but it is true none the less. I appreciate the fact they have sought after truth more diligently than most of the human race.

To answer your thoughts: They do hold this concept on the one hand and then, when it comes to human beings, they switch gears. All of a sudden, consciousness is now distinct and finite. Every thing is formless except, the human being, which is finite caused by meta-evolution. Your experience is finite, your consciousness is finite and your awareness is finite.

This is contradiction and creates spiritual schizophrenia. Cognitive dissonance is the result.

The experience of consciousness is infinite in every test you can put it to - is truth. They hold that consciousness is finite because (and this is my guess) the Buddha asked the question concerning death. The finite concepts are modes in which we think not in which we live.

There is no edge to your field of awareness. If consciousness is subject to the material internal wiring of the brain - it must be measurable. What are the dimensions of your field of awareness? In a thought experiment;throw a ball at the edge of your field of awareness. Did the ball bounce back or keep going?

a spiritual domain of clear mind free of delusion that's a possibility for humans.
one dwells there.
it is the enlightened domain.
QRS recognises human being is full of desire and agenda and that desire ought to be directed towards enlightenment rather than world-eating.

The problem is; according to the philosophy of being as a finite experience, it is impossible to escape the prison of the brain. It becomes a prison that needs to be denied as a 'real experience'. It becomes a situation of a boat that is sinking and the best you can do is bail water.

science is a world-eating phenomenon,
it constructs models and fits phenomena into its models, disregarding phenomena that doesn't quite fit.
all it comes up with is high tech sunglasses (pleasure products) and nuclear bombs (pain products).
so, its relatively useless and harmful.
I have heard Einstein was stricken with remorse for his role in enabling such monstrous products and turned to philosophy for solace.

It is true that science, at its best, only allows for details and cannot explain the whole of reality. If academic physics would stop teaching students to find out what these little things are and instead teach the universe is made up of mind, physics would be a breeze. Until then, they will never result in M-theory.

M-theory is that consciousness contains all things. Every quantum experiment validates this truth over and over. But alas, it leads us to a meta-consciousness and this is anathema to modern science as well as this board.

QRS recognises the ultimate reality of form (this is how Dennis reads the QRS curriculum).
that form is empty, impermanent, non-self.
that giving selfhood to any phenomena is giving it its own essence which is nominal reality only and is a conventional reality or agreement deluded beings hold as the only reality.

This is where we agree. Where it diverges is that consciousness is a finite phenomena.

Do you experience a whole reality or a partial reality?
Have you ever had the same day twice?
Is there an edge to your perceptual awareness?
Can you remember a time you were not?
Do you recall the moment you became aware?

QRS make a judgement call on a form called Woman.
which is a disposedness or disposition toward worldly trivial pursuits that includes most men.
QRS welcome rational women with a passion for enlightenment with open arms.
the assumption that QRS is misygonistic is misunderstood.

This is true, the accusation against QRS as being misogynistic is false. They do hold the position that men have a tendency that is more inclined to become wise or enlightened.

I think I can be surprised by wisdom and find it in the most unlikely places.

Searching Google and YouTube for "meta-evolution" and "M-Theory" gives back vague results that doesn't seem to be very relevant with what you say, at least on the surface. Do you have any links or videos you can share for those that want to know more about what you're talking about?

This is where we agree. Where it diverges is that consciousness is a finite phenomena.

You are giving consciousness 'absolute reality'.
if consciousness is of the status 'absolute reality'.
it cannot depend for its existence.
that it is independent.

Is that your assertion?

can we call consciousness a stream of mental events of a non-physical nature.
mental events arise from previous mental events in an unbroken continuum, much as physical entities arise from previous physical entities.
grandfather begets father, father begets son and so on.
physical events modify and transform mental events without transforming into them.
mental events modify and transform physical events without transforming into them.

so there we are at the participatory realisation again.
mind and matter interdependent.

how can that which depends assume absolute status?

the Buddhists believe your personhood dies with your body but some subtle energy passes into other worlds or other forms.
If 'I' reemerged as a mosquito,
what would be different?
there would still be physical/mental events.
still an interdependent experience.

its still causes/conditions and what is causes/conditions lacks inherent existence.

Beingof1 wrote: The experience of consciousness is infinite in every test you can put it to - is truth.

Describe the object that is currently sitting on my table to the left of the computer.

Beingof1 wrote: They [QRS] hold that consciousness is finite because (and this is my guess) the Buddha asked the question concerning death. The finite concepts are modes in which we think not in which we live..

If consciousness is conceived to be identical to Nature (the ALL) in every respect, then it is infinite. If not, it is finite.

The problem lies with people wanting it to be identical to Nature (so that it can be all-inclusive) and yet not identical to Nature (since it involves the mental projection of an additional quality). In the end, the desire to conceive everything being composed of consciousness is the egotistical desire to feel in control of things.

Searching Google and YouTube for "meta-evolution" and "M-Theory" gives back vague results that doesn't seem to be very relevant with what you say, at least on the surface. Do you have any links or videos you can share for those that want to know more about what you're talking about?

Macro evolution is a better search term. M theory should get you to a wiki.

Dennis:

You are giving consciousness 'absolute reality'.
if consciousness is of the status 'absolute reality'.
it cannot depend for its existence.
that it is independent.

Is that your assertion?

Reality is contingent upon consciousness, yes.It is not an assertion, it is what is self evident.

Show me a universe apart or outside from consciousness.

can we call consciousness a stream of mental events of a non-physical nature.

No - that is the medical term 'to be conscious'.

Consciousness is the full set, awareness is a subset of consciousness and perception is a subset of awareness.

mental events arise from previous mental events in an unbroken continuum, much as physical entities arise from previous physical entities.
grandfather begets father, father begets son and so on.
physical events modify and transform mental events without transforming into them.
mental events modify and transform physical events without transforming into them.

Allow me to quote you, Dennis said:

can you distinguish between a mind that conceives of an electron,
and an electron the mind conceives of?

if you can you may notice that there's an interdependent causal relationship.

you may also assume that at the moment a mind conceives of an electron, that the electron always existed and was waiting for a mind to find it.
have you evidence that the electron always existed.

what you are arguing,apparently, and I could be mistaken, is essentialism.
that 'things' have an essential nature, are independent, have their 'own being', exist from their own side.

what about the notion of a participatory universe, a dance of mind and matter.
a display.

You are holding two completely contradictory positions. The Buddha said when you realize the truth you are free from all contradiction.

so there we are at the participatory realisation again.
mind and matter interdependent.

how can that which depends assume absolute status?

Because there is no universe that is outside of consciousness. Therefore, consciousness interpenetrates the universe.

This is why I talk about the photon, so you can plainly see this.
⊃ or super set is known as superposition. If photon is both energy and information, which it is, it contains all atomic structure. If consciousness is both energy and information, which it is, it contains all atomic structure.

C ^ Consciousness - an identical mathematical match. Therefore, it is not an assertion, it is proof.

C=dA+A^A

Consciousness and light travel at the same speed. Electricity travels at the speed of light until it meets resistance.

Consciousness and the electromagnetic wave are identical. They are both, at the same time, a particle and a wave function.

This is testable, can be duplicated, can be falsified and has predictive power. Therefore it can be verified.

the Buddhists believe your personhood dies with your body but some subtle energy passes into other worlds or other forms.
If 'I' reemerged as a mosquito,
what would be different?
there would still be physical/mental events.
still an interdependent experience.

its still causes/conditions and what is causes/conditions lacks inherent existence.

You did not answer a single question I asked you. That is not healthy, avoiding questions that is. How do you honestly expect to know truth when you dodge questions?

You need to seriously work on that dude. Answer my questions or we will keep going around in circles.

David:

Describe the object that is currently sitting on my table to the left of the computer.

David, David - still thinking I am promoting a parlor trick.

Are you aware of this object? Since you must be, therefore consciousness is aware of this object. There is no object outside David, especially since you are containing it in your field of awareness.

You think consciousness, as I am describing it, is to 'be conscious'. I am talking about the source of thought not thought itself.

I will describe it - it is beside your computer and therefore exists in Davids consciousness.

But I will tell you what I see - illumination and a cup.

If consciousness is conceived to be identical to Nature (the ALL) in every respect, then it is infinite. If not, it is finite.

This is the entire problem - right here. Full stop, put on the brakes and hit the pause button.

You cannot - under any circumstances - conceive of The All. It cannot be, nor will it ever be, a concept. A concept is a model, at its very best. The totality cannot be conceptualized, neither can consciousness. Not now - not ever.

It can only be experienced. It, the all, defies all definitions; and by the way, so does your consciousness.

The problem lies with people wanting it to be identical to Nature (so that it can be all-inclusive) and yet not identical to Nature (since it involves the mental projection of an additional quality).

No - you still are not getting it. Consciousness and nature are not subject to being only what it can be. It is not made of the sum of its parts and seeks impossibilities because that is the nature of what the infinite is. It has already expanded to all possible worlds, it therefore expands the possibilities of what is. That is the essence of what the infinite is.

This defies all constraints of any and every concept.
Your consciousness has never repeated a single experience because it, as well as nature, are in a continuum of infinite momentum. It can never exhaust itself in experience or thought.

In the end, the desire to conceive everything being composed of consciousness is the egotistical desire to feel in control of things.

In the end, the desire to be able to conceive of the totality is the desire to feel in control. I can assure you, you will never conceive your consciousness , nature, or the all.

The moment you think you have conceptualized it - it just expanded beyond the horizon.

As it stands the consensus among scientists is that all knowledge is fallible (not just scientific). This statement has to be taken as faith (keeping away from the question ofits fallibility).

Is there a difference between this kind of faith and that of someone who beleives the bible was inspired by a living god?
We all beleive ,say, that the sun is mostly made out of hydrogen because of scientific evidence from experiments. But did any of us actualy do the experiments .. We just chose to beleive that the guys who did it were honest. or that many different guys did the same experiment and they cant all be lying.
But that last point can be said by people listening to how others experienced miracles.Do we know even whether or not we are in a sane enough state to choose between beliefs because even (some) insane people think they are sane.

The main difference between most atheists and theists is that they have different assumptions (articles of faith) (axioms) which by definition are not provable.

Gurrb wrote:i don't wish to spark an argument to determine who is right (for it cannot be determined). i just wish to get a friendly poll on the religious views of people on this forum, and why they believe what they do.

let me reiterate, i'm not going to pass judgment and don't wish to disprove your belief. just a curiosity.

i'm atheist. that is all.

Gurrb, you say you are an athiest. I challenge the integrity of this statement, because you cannot BE an idea, you cannot BE a concept, you cannot BE anything!

Why? Because form is impermanent and ever-changing. This is not a belief, religious or otherwise, it is the truth of the nature of form. You were not an atheist when you were two. You will not be an atheist when you take your last breath. Absorbing the truth of the impermanent and ever-changing nature of form changes completely one's view of self and of God. Scary at first, but once one "gets used to it" [and this can take a short time or a very long time] it becomes the single-pointed meditation of truth analysis.

This brings me to relate what I have said to your topic, "Faith." Acknowledging the truth of impermanence of form is not about faith in a God or faith in atheism or faith in any concept of the clinging human intellect, but faith in truth itself!

Thoughts, feelings, senses enable ego.
They are the ego experience.
without them ego is impossible.

to be egocentric is to have thoughts, feelings, senses.

they are of a finite nature.
my point was thoughts/feelings are invisible not physical.
invisible affects visible but doesn't become visible.
they are still phenomena.

the correct view is that everything that exists (phenomena) lacks an intrinsic nature or identity.
how do they exist?
all entities are viewed as dependently related events and none bears independent existence.

you are saying consciousness is some kind of machinery based on photons, energy, etc..
that means it depends for its existence.